Protestant Bibles

[Maccabees]

TertiumQuid

I find it quite telling that there are not any serious attempts to refute the 3 volume set authored by William Webster and David King, “Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.” Perhaps you should get these books.

Gee when even the title itself contradicts scripture I think I will stay away.

1 Timothy 3
15but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Scripture says the church is the pillar and ground of truth and not the Bible.

I don’t need to read 3 volumes of spin to figure out the contradiction to scripture.

 

[Maccabees]

And I gave you quotes from J.N.D Kelley and other protestant scholars and the fathers themselves. I know you don’t read carefully but they did come to the opposite conclusion of William Webster this is not my subjective thought. But I too after research have come to a different conclusion than yours. So now only your research is valid those sources which expose Webster as a fraud are wrong?

And yes a former protestant Anglcian bishop (who later became a catholic Cardinal) wrote against the Premise of Webster and King before they were even born. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled “Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation.”

Newman’s argument

He wrote: "It is quite evident that this passage furnishes no argument whatever that the sacred Scripture, without Tradition, is the sole rule of faith; for, although sacred Scripture is profitable for these four ends, still it is not said to be sufficient. The Apostle [Paul] requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle here refers to the scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy.

“Now, a good part of the New Testament was not written in his boyhood: Some of the Catholic epistles were not written even when Paul wrote this, and none of the books of the New Testament were then placed on the canon of the Scripture books. He refers, then, to the scriptures of the Old Testament, and, if the argument from this passage proved anything, it would prove too much, viz., that the scriptures of the New Testament were not necessary for a rule of faith.”

Furthermore, Protestants typically read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context. When read in the context of the surrounding passages, one discovers that Paul’s reference to Scripture is only part of his exhortation that Timothy take as his guide Tradition and Scripture. The two verses immediately before it state: “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy. So Protestants must take 2 Timothy 3:16-17 out of context to arrive at the theory of sola scriptura. But when the passage is read in context, it becomes clear that it is teaching the importance of apostolic tradition!

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).

This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later. Jesus told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). The Church, in the persons of the apostles, was given the authority to teach by Christ; the Church would be his representative. He commissioned them, saying, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19).

 

[brianberean]

Gee when even the title itself contradicts scripture I think I will stay away.

Pardon the interruption, but I beleive King and Webster, in the title of their excellent series, may be borrowing from Irenaeus:

WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies 3:1)

Carry on then…

Brian

 

[Maccabees]

TQ
This is spurious. Luther simply followed in the tradition of Jerome, rather than the tradition of Augustine, Hippo, and Carthage. A large number of theologians followed Jerome’s lead, and voiced opinions about the apocrypha. Luther was among these theologians. And why should Luther have followed Hippo and Carthage anyway? They were clearly in error. Webster points out,

“* Roman Catholics are quick to point out that the canons of Hippo and Carthage were given ecumenical authority and therefore the force of law for the whole Church by this Council. Thus, its decrees on the canon have been officially sanctioned. However, the Council also sanctioned the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.* (Source: Sacred Scripture, Vol. 2 p. 360-361)

When was the last time you read 3 Maccabees, Mr. Maccabees?

Well here is your guy spinning again and again. Well for one thing I gave you evidence of Jerome and Rufinas retracting their postion on the dueteros after the councils. And I have said that Hippo and Carthage and the Synod of Rome were local councils that were witnesses to the normal rule of faith and accepted canon of the time nowhere did I say otherwise not until the Council of Florence is their attempt to make an official ecumenical canon. That canon of course has only the 2 books of Maccabees. Oh but wait a minute so did the Synod of Rome, Hippo and Carthage all had the same 2 books of Maccabees. Please read the primary sources and not the spin of Webster.

The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings];Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books."
Council of Rome,Decree of Pope Damasus(A.D. 382),in DEN,34

“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.”
Council of Hippo,Canon 36(A.D. 393),in NPNF2,XIV:453-454

 

[Maccabees]

“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.”
Council of Carthage III,Canon 397(A.D. 397),in DEN,39-40

“Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:–Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles --these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra,(ie. Ezra & Nehemiah) which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:–Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books.”
Augustine,On Christian Doctrine,II:8(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:53-539

The rulings included the 2 Books of Maccabees since the councils were acknowleged as a western council and not binding on the East it was completely understandable for a provision to be made that 3 Maccabees be included in a canon list meant for the east outside of the western church. But make no mistake the tradition from those times remain till today in the west only the 2 books of Maccabees are accepted in the west but in the Greek Church 3 Maccabees is accepted. By the time Florence came to be the Greek Church broke with us thus the difference in canon.

 

[Maccabees]

From the catholic encyclopedia on the subject of 3 Maccabees in the The Greek Church

The result of this tendency among the Greeks was that about the beginning of the twelfth century they possessed a canon identical with that of the Latins, except that it took in the apocryphal III Machabees. That all the deuteros were liturgically recognized in the Greek Church at the era of the schism in the ninth century, is indicated by the “Syntagma Canonum” of Photius.

Luther did not even list 3 Maccabees in his apocrapha so the tradition (yes the western catholic tradition) handed down to Luther suggest the absence of 3 Maccabees due to its exclusion in the western canon. Luther did just like the earlier councils include the 1 and 2 Maccabees in his Bible. (albeit in the unilateral decision of seperate placement). Webster conveniently leaves this out in his full of holes thesis.

Also using Athanasius is problematic when you consider he placed Esther outside the OT canon and explicitly included Baruch in the OT canon along with the dueterocanonical greek text in Daniel which is rejected by protestants today?

**Four Discourse Against the Arians. Discourse, 1.12 **

And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and By whom He madethe ages,’ they thereby as clearly preachthe eternal and everlasting being of the Son,even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;' and Susanna said, O Everlasting God ;’ and Baruch wrote, I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One) ;’ yet forasmuch as the Apostle, writing to the Hebrews, says, Who being the radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Person) ;' and David too in the eighty-ninth Psalm, And the brightness of the Lord be upon us,’ and, In Thy Light shall we see Light) ,' who has so little sense as to doubt of the eternity of the Son? And in Daniel, Susanna cried out with a loud voice and said, O everlasting God, that knowest the secrets, and knowest all things before they be.

Rom. i. 20. Heb. i. 2. Is. xl. 28. Hist. Sus. 42. Bar. iv. 20, 22. Heb. i. 3. Ps. xc. 17; Ps. xxxvi. 9 Ps. xc. 2. Hist. Sus. 42

When was the last time you read Baruch, Mr. TQ?

 

[Maccabees]

Mac

Gee when even the title itself contradicts scripture I think I will stay away.

[
](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/member.php?u=1907)brianberean%between%

Pardon the interruption, but I beleive King and Webster, in the title of their excellent series, may be borrowing from Irenaeus:

WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies 3:1)

Proclaim in public is meant PREACHED ORALLY!

Well this exactly precisely true because the scriptures came from “the church (**1 Timothy 3:15) **of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” It is able to hand down from its oral tradtion the scriptures which by its relation to church are also the ground and pillar of our faith. However did Iraneus suppose a division between the two (the tradition of the church and scripture) that protestants created with the doctrine of sola scriptura?

Well considering he also says “Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition”
AH 3,2,1

 

[Maccabees]

I don’t think he is talking about sola scriptura here. Read the rest of Ireneaus he’s not the protestant Webster tries to make him out to be by misinterpreting a quote.

‘Since, therefore, the TRADITION from the apostles DOES thus EXIST in the Church, and is PERMAMENT AMONG US, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him’
AH 3,5,1

"Through none others know we the disposition of our salvation, than those through whom the gospel came to us, first heralding it, then by the will of God delivering to us the Scriptures, which were to be the foundation and pillar of our faith…But when, the heretics are Scriptures,as if they were wrong, and unauthoritative, and were variable, and the truth could not be extracted from them by those who were ignorant of tradition…And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles’
AH 3,1-3

 

[Maccabees]

For Irenaeus tradition included three things

1)the faith that was handed on-oral or in writing

‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
AH 3,4:1

2)a living authority

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church…those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have recieved the certain gift of truth…”
AH 26:2

3)transmission and preservation by succession.

“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is MOST abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the Apostles until now, and handed in truth”
AH 3,3:3

“Then I have pointed out the truth, and shown the preaching of the Church, which the prophets proclaimed(as I have already demonstrated), but which Christ brought to perfection, and the apostles have handed down , from which the Church, recieving [these truths], and throughout all the world alone preserving them in their integrity, has transmitted them to her sons. Then also-having disposed of all questions which the heretics propose to us, and having explained the doctrine of the apostles, and clearly set forth many of those things which were said and done by the Lord in parables–I shall endeavor, in this fifth book of the entire work which treats of the exposure and refutation of knowledge falsely so called, to exhibit proofs from the rest of the Lord’s doctrine and apostolic epistles; [thus] complying with demand, as thou didst request of me(since indeed I have been assigned a place in ministry of the word); and, labouring by every means…and convert them to the Church of God…that they may preserve stedfast the faith which they have recieved, guarded by the Church in its integrity, in order that they be in no way preverted by those who endeavor to teach them false doctrine…”
AH V Preface

“Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed to the Churches; which fact I have in the third book taken all pains to demonstrate. It follows, then, as a matter of course, that these aforementioned, since they are blind to the truth,and deviate from the

way, will walk in various roads; and therefore the footsteps of their doctrine are scattered here and there without agreement or connection. But the path of those belonging to the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition of the Apostles, and gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same …And undoubtily the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughtout the whole world…For the Church preaches the truth everywhere…”
AH V 20,1

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters…It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.”
AH V 20,2

Episcopal Succession

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church, those who as I have shown, possess succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of bishops, have recieved the CERTAIN GIFT of TRUTH, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also uncumbent] to hold in SUSPICION others who DEPART from the primitive succession of the succession, and assemble themselves…But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] recieve from God the same punishments as Jeroboam did”
AH 4,26:2​

 

[Maccabees]

Regarding John Calvin’s quote here we have Mr Webster forerunner in spinning. He explains away the obvious actual words of Augustine into some elaborate theory besides the obvious… Ok Mr Calvin if the church give you the 26 New Testament books (remember he differs from Luther in his criteria of the new testament he accepts the 26 books) then who gave you the Bible and how do you know it is true and Inspired what is Calvins answer to this very important question. He just explained away the obvious answer I am sure Calvin’s response is elaborate and meaningless.

 

[Maccabees]

Quote:

WHy do Protestants believe in the same fixed canon when it contradicts historical fact that to Luther canon was related to dogma not constand tradition.

spelling and grammar aside, I have no idea what you’re asking.

Oh Gee William Webster had no answer in his books for this one so neither do you?
Ok let me break this down in terms even you can understand…

The protestant churches use a fixed uniform canon.

Can you explain why you accept all the books of the NT if the councils and canons were not binding in anyway? Luther had a different canon than the rest of the reformers because he had a different criteria for canonicity than the rest of the Reformers they accepted all the book Luther rejected four of the books from the canon.

Quote:

Considering each protestant tradtion had distinct dogmas that sepearte themselves shouldn’t the canon be differnet also as some books in the Bible would demphazise a particular denominations belief some books such 2 Peter would contradict symbolic baptism for the Baptist who beleives it is a symbol he should have the right to throw it out then.

No, because on the essential: “salvation by grace alone, through faith alone because of Christ alone” the large majority of Protestants agree. We have more unity than you think.

Yeah sure that’s why they disagree among themselves about the definition of sola scriptura and sola fide they don’t agree among what the so called essentials even mean. Could you point me to the verse that discusses essentials and non essentials in belief. I seem to recall Jesus telling the apostles to teach ALL THINGS.

I hear some protestanst teach double predestination, once-saved always saved. Free-will, these are faith based doctrines they also disagree about unity of belief is something even you should know better than to bring up.

Even Luther complained there were to many doctrines and heads in Christianity in his own lifetime. And that was when the Reformation started! If he would look at the thousands of denoms today his statements would be even more harsh.

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees,

Unless you haven’t realized it yet, I’m working point by point through your posts. Thus, if you respond to anything I write, I will get to it in the order in which you posted it. So before you say something like “I quoted you xyz and you didn’t respond….” recall what I have just said.

Now…where was I in my review of your comments?

You said:

Gee agreeing with an anti-catholic apologist who slants and misinterprets quotes for a living. Why don’t I find this suprising. Look for the truth or something that wins debates. You have chosen the latter. Like said try broadening your horizons a little and read some catholic sources. Or objective sources such as acclaimed protestant church historian J.N.D. Kelley perhaps the most brilliant and unbiased historian to come down the pipe in the last century.

I find it ironic (and humorous) that you would question my citations of Webster, when earlier you relied on the work of (probably) an atheist for your knowledge of Luther and his attitude toward the Jews. The home page that hosts the article from which you plagiarized is filled with blatant God hating. See for yourself:
nobeliefs.com/index.htm.

So I posit you should try broadening your horizons and read some Protestant sources on Luther like Jaroslav Pelikan (formerly Protestant), Paul Althaus, or Roland Bainton before you venture into discussing Luther. There are even good Catholic authors like John Todd, George Tavard, or Joseph Lortz whose opinions on Luther are worthy of consideration . Here’s a good list for you to work with:
ntrmin.org/Catholic%20Understanding%20of%20Luther%202.htm.

All three of these authors are quite respected in their knowledge of Luther. If I were to take seriously your admonition to “broaden my horizons” I should probably go out and get a few books by atheists and skeptics on the canon. I should do exactly what you did in your treatment of Luther.

Regards,
James Swan

 

[TertiumQuid]

Mr. Maccabees said:

How do Kelley and Webster study the same church history and come to 2 entirely different conclusions?

Because scholarship has not stood still. Further research has continued on the canon. Kelly’s book is an older work which relied on earler research that has been surpassed. For instance, Roger Beckwith has gone far beyond Kelly’s work. He states,

That the gradual development of Christian practice is more than apparent, and that we would not find, if our evidence was more ample, that Christians knew all the Apocrypha and treated them as Scripture from the beginning, is shown not only by the silence of the New Testament on the Apocrypha but by three further facts. The first is that in the earliest Christian Septuagint manuscripts which are extant, the papyri, up until the peace of the church in AD 313 the only books of the Apocrypha to occur are… Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom. The second fact is that Melito, who was bishop of Sardis in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in the second half of the second century, dying about AD 190, tells us how he was often pressed by his friend Onesimus to obtain ‘an accurate statement of the ancient books as regards their number and their order’, and consequently applied to Palestine for the necessary information: hence his famous list of the Old Testament books. Thus, in Melito’s time there was doubt in the province of Asia about the number (and therefore the identity) of the Old Testament books, which may have some connection with Polycarp’s use of Tobit as Scripture a few decades earlier, since Polycarp’s see was at Smyrna, also in the province of Asia. Onesimus’s doubts, and the way they were allayed, show clearly that the canonicity of Tobit, or any of the other Apocrypha, was not firmly established in Asia; for the answer Melito comes back with is that none of the Apocrypha are canonical, but only the books of the Hebrew Bible (less Esther). The third fact is equally remarkable. It is that in the Muratorian Fragment, where ‘Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour’, is listed among the Scriptures, it is among the New Testament Scriptures and not the Old Testament that is listed. The Muratorian Fragment, at least in its extant form, does not include the Old Testament books, but it puts Wisdom between the Epistles and the Revelation. This clearly indicates not only a desire to treat Wisdom as canonical, but also a consciousness that it was not included in the canon of the Old Testament.

Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, 389-390.

Regards, James Swan

 

[Maccabees]

Mac
Just as Lutehr threw out James when it contradicted his pet doctrines. Think man just don’t run to William Webster to avoid the logical.

TQ

He did a bad job throwing it out. It was in his Bible translation. Luther says he cannot include James among his “chief books though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.” Luther simply questioned the book. Had he thrown it out, it would not have appeared in his Bible, along with the above comment from his preface

.

Ok I guess by this anology the dueterocanonicals were not given a lesser uncanonical status and relegated to its own special lowly section . He made James, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation a new testament apocrapha. Something not other protestant leader would dare break from catholic tradition.

As any objective and rational person would deduct just because Luther kept the traditional western catholic books of the bible he did intend to throw some books out of its traditional understanding of being canonical and designate others as lesser books.

 

[Maccabees]

The catholic Encyclopedia says this:

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament Canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles.

Since you make a habit of using William Webster in many of your writings.

I will throw in the research of Dave Armstrong a Catholic Apologist and see his side of the story. You can’t say it’s not a viable sources as you yourself have said just because my guy is an apologist it doesn’t mean his opinion isn’t right.

Well turn around is fair play here is his finding with his footnotes.

 

[Maccabees]

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God’s holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound – as a lone individual – to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years. Who can fathom such outlandish arrogance and presumptuousness? Not I . . .

Most of these sentiments (especially concerning the New Testament) can be found in Luther’s prefaces to various books of the Bible. Scanning some of those in one of my primary Luther sources (Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932, copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6. pp. 363 ff., tr. C.M. Jacobs), I see that Luther rejects the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, although he does say they are “fine” books. Yet of James, Luther states that it is “flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture.” Logical consistency was not one of Luther’s better qualities, needless to say.

If a book in the Bible contradicts another, then it is clearly not God-breathed (as God can’t contradict Himself or be in error about anything), hence not inspired, and therefore not part of Scripture at all. And that is basically Luther’s conclusion, although the overwhelming weight of Tradition pertaining to the biblical canon led (forced?) him to retain these books in his Bible, albeit separately, as a sort of New Testament “Apocrypha.”

In his Preface to Revelation, from 1522 – from the time period in which he was translating the Bible), he pontificates:

I miss more than one thing in this book, and this makes me hold it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic. . . . I think of it almost as I do of the Fourth Book of Esdras, and can nohow detect that the Holy Spirit produced it . . .

It is just the same as if we had it not, and there are many far better books for us to keep.

. . . Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think [Dave: what better exposition of the radical *sola Scriptura position?]. My spirit cannot fit itself into this book. There is one sufficient reason for me not to think highly of it, – Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle is bound, above all else, to do, as He says in Acts 1, ‘Ye shall be my witnesses.’ Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely.

(Jacobs, ibid., 488-489)

 

[Maccabees]

Of special noteworthiness and relevance is Luther’s Preface to the New Testament (1522; revised 1545), where he says many astonishing, outrageously presumptuous and foolish things (including the famous “epistle of straw” remark). After expounding generally for a few pages, the alleged restorer of the gospel concludes:

From all this you can now judge all the books and decide among them which are the best.

. . . John’s Gospel is the one, tender, true chief Gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three and placed high above them. So, too, the Epistles of St. Paul and St. Peter far surpass the other three Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

In a word, St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first Epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and good for you to know, even though you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them; for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.

(Jacobs, ibid., 443-444)

And so we have seen this tendency of emphasizing certain New Testament books and neglecting others in Protestantism to this day. This outlook is very familiar to me from my own ten years’ experience in evangelicalism. It was clear that St. Paul’s writings (esp. Romans) and John’s Gospel were the favorites, and the books Luther liked less are too often woefully neglected (especially Hebrews and James). Revelation is popular in some circles (particularly the Dispensationalists), but it is, of course, subject to countless wacko prophetic and apocalyptic scenarios.

Since you can’t think logically perhaps like to read quotes

 

[Maccabees]

Luther biographer Hartmann Grisar, S.J. (author of a massive six-volume biography), writes:

His criticism of the Bible proceeds along entirely subjective and arbitrary lines. The value of the sacred writings is measured by the rule of his own doctrine. He treats the venerable canon of Scripture with a liberty which annihilates all certitude. For, while this list has the highest guarantee of sacred tradition and the backing of the Church, Luther makes religious sentiment the criterion by which to decide which books belong to the Bible, which are doubtful, and which are to be excluded. At the same time he practically abandons the concept of inspiration, for he says nothing of a special illuminative activity of God in connection with the writers’ composition of the Sacred Book, notwithstanding that he holds the Bible to be the Word of God because its authors were sent by God . . . . .

Thus his attitude towards the Bible is really burdened with ‘flagrant contradictions,’ to use an expression of Harnack, especially since he ‘had broken through the external authority of the written word,’ by his critical method. And of this, Luther is guilty, the very man who elsewhere represents the Bible as the sole principle of faith!

If, in addition to this, his arbitrary method of interpretation is taken into consideration, the work of destruction wrought by him appears even greater. The only weapon he possessed he wrested from his own hand, as it were, both theoretically and in practice. "His procedure regarding the sacred writings is apt to make thoughtful minds realize how great is the necessity of an infallible Church as divinely appointed guardian and authentic interpreter of the Bible.

(Martin Luther: His Life and Work, tr. Frank J. Eble, ed. Arthur Preuss, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1930, 263-265)

 

[Maccabees]

As far as your critique thatn Lutehr’s anti-semtism is not valid because you can find the quotes on the net on an atheistic website. Well where was I going to find it without typing it out on the Lutheran website?

You can find many of the quotes in Luther, Martin, On the Jews and Their Lies, translated by Martin H. Bertram, Fortress Press, 1955

ITs not made up and its very real. ANd your such a hypocrite your going on and on just becuase you use a protestant apologist as your spin source doesn’t mean its not valid the same goes for an atheist even they can see the hyporcisy of those who look up to Luther and never mention his anti-semetism you don’t have to be Catholic to see Lutehr was a nutcase.
And like I said I have documented everything regarded the canon debate you are so ridiculous to pick a bone with these quotes when its obvious I am trying to save time and getting it on the net.
Look the quotes are legitamate and the opinions are legitamate you don’t have to be a Chrstian to have a say on anti-semetism. In fact atheist are far more objective in relgious debates. For one thing they don’t care or have a vested interest in who is right.
Now yeah I wouldn’t be going to them for Biblical criticism but attitudes of hate like Luther even an unbeleiver can pick on what is wrong here. But the tone in your wrtiings indicate validity in only protestants which support you a I quote research form Catholics, Protestants and atheist which support me and I am wrong becuase I disagree with you.
But you don’t look for truth but only twisted facts to support for an existence of a movement that didn’t exist the first 1500 years of Christianity. BUt you guys have been PROTESTING the TRUE church for 1500 years on a house of sand.

 

[Maccabees]

Mr. Maccabees said: Quote:
How do Kelley and Webster study the same church history and come to 2 entirely different conclusions?

TQ Because scholarship has not stood still. Further research has continued on the canon. Kelly’s book is an older work which relied on earler research that has been surpassed. For instance, Roger Beckwith has gone far beyond Kelly’s work.

Well the quote was whole lot of we really don’t know much do we?

Anyway its not Kelley is ancient history here his last update on his work was in 1978 Beckwith was in 1986 it’s not like we found out something in those years like the Dead Seas Scrolls or the writings of the apostolic fathers things that Luther would not recognize as you admitted Luther started with Tertullian.
Look we could back and forth in debate with scholars Beckwith is known to side with the protestant cuase other like R. J. Brabban or Raymond Brown written at the time of Beckwith will side with the Catholic Cause. A decade will not change the research or the facts the last signficant thing to be added to this debate are teh Dead Sea Scrolls and the Ethopian Jewish canon. Whatever is latest and greatest is a weak argument. My point is that some scholars will side with the Catholic point others with the Protestatns and both would be legitamate points of view but you fail to ackowlege that point.
For you the canon changes on the whim on the latest scholar or commentary it shouldn’t. The church which delivered the gospels to us has spoken and exercised the power to bind and loose.
Jesus did not give this power to Bible commentaries or scholars but to the church.
Anyway this quote leads one to have the dueterocanonical book of Wisdom to be placed in the New Testament. Well I certainly think highly of the book but Beckwith is giving what Luther thought to be apocrapah New Testament status.

I am getting pretty tired of all this. It comes down to this beleive in the tradition handed down to the church or beleive in the research you can do yourself and determine your own canon. To accept all 27 new testament books determined by the catholic church is to be hypocritical. TO be consistent be like Luterh make your own canon.
I would rather trust Christ Church than trust the latest scholarly opinion.